Just because something is normal, doesn't make it healthy. I'm sure it's not, based on my personal experiences with it, so it's not likely that a study is going to convince me otherwise.
Hi, my name is Bob, I am not a woman. Most women have a bigger problem with this than men do, anyways. Of course, they call it something different so it's totally ok.
I'm not married/dating/interestedindating. Sorry to disappoint.
My first paragraph is my opinion, so if you think that's bullshit that's fine, but do you really think my second one is bullshit? I know that I was looking at porn by the time I was 8, and that was before the internet.
I know that us nerds love our legalism and our precise definitions, but sometime we need to get real and think about what is actually going on. Apple is a large, powerful company. They manage the largest online app store, and the rule over it with an iron fist. They remove apps simply because they compete with their own, and they remove content which they consider to be objectionable.
Legally, you are correct. They are well within their legal rights, and they are not a branch of the government. However, just because something is legally right does not mean it is fair, or just, or reasonable, or good in any way. Moreover, corporations like apple are made possible through legal constructions that are only possible due to governmental authority. And, companies like Apple do things like this to maintain favor with the government (for example, it has been suggested that Apple is doing this to drum up educational support for their iPad, Schools are almost entirely governmental organizations).
What I am really trying to say here is that in tunnel-vision legalism land, this is not censorship. However, in the real world, which we all are actually living in, it most definitely is censorship.
I disagree, porn is for boys, not men. No man would escape into fantasy land to gain sexual satisfaction, because that is a boyish thing to do. Of course, not all boys are under 18. Is seems there are very few real men in the world.
Also, it's nice to say that boys should not consume porn, but everyone knows that all boys have access to it. That's why I have such a huge problem with this kind of censorship. It does nothing to solve the real problem. It just gives parents an excuse to believe there may not be a problem, when there clearly is one.
Apple isn't known for letting the market decide. They are control freaks. Their behavior in regard to the App Store is totally unreasonable, and it is going to kill the App Store. They need to learn to "Think Different". Assholes.
Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb, other than supporting it politically. Not to say that he wasn't a brilliant physicist, but he really had nothing to do with it.
He's saying that a 1 kw unit will cost $3,000, last 30 years, and be twice as efficient as a conventional gas generator (so around 80%). That means he expects it to produce 260,000 kWh of electricity in it's lifetime, while consuming about 30,000 cubic meters of natural gas. If you assume that natural gas will cost about 50 cents per cubic meter, while electricity will cost 12 cents per kWh, you get about $15,000 operating cost for this system ($18,000 including the cost of the unit itself), while simply buying the electricity off the grid would cost you about $30,000.
Even if the units end up costing $15,000 for a 1kW unit, it will be cost competitive with grid power!
So yeah, this system is cost competitive with grid power. Impossible you say? No, because it is twice as efficient at converting chemical energy into electrical power! The high initial costs are balanced by the phenomenal energy efficiency, and the long proposed lifespan of the units.
30 years is a fairly typical time line for the power industry, because the government usually compels them to sell power for less than is really reasonable. But on the plus side, power generators have an easy time getting government subsidized loans to offset the disadvantage. Gotta love our free market economy:)
Fuel cells have the benefit of having no moving parts. The benefit is that they can be very low maintenance. That can mean lower operating costs, especially for smaller plants. But in theory these could be more cost effective than a large plant, as long as the fuel cells are cheap enough and reliable enough, and they are more efficient power generators ( greater energy efficiency is practically a given when you are taking about fuel cells).
The real question is how efficient are these fuel cells, and how much do they cost per year to maintain? If they are 70% or more efficient they beat combined cycle generators, and fuel cells typically achieve this. As long as they don't need to be replaced very often and the membranes are cheap to replace, this will work well. You could combine this with an high-temperature electrolysis plant and use it to store wind or solar power. That is one of the main things standing in the way of using alternative energy for base-load electric generation.
Are you sure about that? These are ceramic membranes, not polymer, so they might last a lot longer. Also, they don't contain platinum, so they might cost a lot less as well.
You can quit your job at any time. You are compelled to attend high-school by force of law.
Stating your qualitative opinion of something is not libel, it is an opinion. It is protected under free speech regardless. You're a douche-bag. This is not libel, this is my honest and truthful opinion.
But this car is one that the driver sits in, the other cars have the driver laying on their back. This car seems a little more practical to me for that reason.
Rolling friction is dependent on wheels first and foremost (based on their size, shape, thickness, how inelastic they are, how efficient the bearing is), not so much the road surface. It certainly is possible to achieve a very low rolling friction, especially in a lightweight vehicle.
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
1) It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
2) It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
So a theory does not have to be established by evidence in order to be a theory, it only must make a testable prediction. However, in practice scientists won't call it a theory unless it is established by a body of evidence and largely consistent with existing accepted theories.
We shouldn't use the term "Science" as a blanket term to describe any method of investigation. Doing that discredits what I consider legitimate science in the eyes of the un-differentiating public.
Although the "Science" of global climate change is filled with computer models, hypothesis and conjecture, it is mostly devoid controlled experimentation. Controlled experimentation is, in my opinion, the difference between science and other forms of investigation. You need controlled experimentation to gather information about the certainty and applicability of you conclusions. Without controlled experimentation it is impossible to differentiate causality from mere correlation.
Privacy is overrated. I think it's hilarious when public celebrities say "we expect people to respect our privacy during these difficult times". They certainly were happy to enjoy the benefits of public life, well lack of privacy is the price. Likewise with the internet and open availability of information. It's great that we're all sharing and all kinds of information is out in the open, but it also means a lack of privacy. You take the good with the bad. You can't have you cake and eat it too.
That's ridiculous. A toaster oven is merely a larger toaster. What's the benefit to that? There is absolutely nothing you can do with a toaster oven that you can't do with a toaster. Just tell you wife to stick with the toaster, there is no reason she could possibly want a toaster oven.
Usually when people say they can't find work, they mean work they are willing to do. He might be able to get a job at McDonalds or 7-eleven, but they probably weren't up to his standards.
I have a lot of friends who say they can't find a job because of the job market. When I ask them if they've tried at applying for a job at a fast food place with a help-wanted sign on the door they universally respond with something like "I won't work fast food" or "I'm looking for more money than that". It's hard to earn my sympathy, if that's all the harder you'll try. I've worked fast-food, I've been a janitor, I've worked a cash register. If I were to lose my job today, I wouldn't consider myself above such things. It's all work that needs to get done.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has been in this situation before. History has shown that this course of action is the wrong one.
Just because something is normal, doesn't make it healthy. I'm sure it's not, based on my personal experiences with it, so it's not likely that a study is going to convince me otherwise.
Hi, my name is Bob, I am not a woman. Most women have a bigger problem with this than men do, anyways. Of course, they call it something different so it's totally ok.
I'm not married/dating/interestedindating. Sorry to disappoint.
My first paragraph is my opinion, so if you think that's bullshit that's fine, but do you really think my second one is bullshit? I know that I was looking at porn by the time I was 8, and that was before the internet.
I know that us nerds love our legalism and our precise definitions, but sometime we need to get real and think about what is actually going on. Apple is a large, powerful company. They manage the largest online app store, and the rule over it with an iron fist. They remove apps simply because they compete with their own, and they remove content which they consider to be objectionable.
Legally, you are correct. They are well within their legal rights, and they are not a branch of the government. However, just because something is legally right does not mean it is fair, or just, or reasonable, or good in any way. Moreover, corporations like apple are made possible through legal constructions that are only possible due to governmental authority. And, companies like Apple do things like this to maintain favor with the government (for example, it has been suggested that Apple is doing this to drum up educational support for their iPad, Schools are almost entirely governmental organizations).
What I am really trying to say here is that in tunnel-vision legalism land, this is not censorship. However, in the real world, which we all are actually living in, it most definitely is censorship.
I disagree, porn is for boys, not men. No man would escape into fantasy land to gain sexual satisfaction, because that is a boyish thing to do. Of course, not all boys are under 18. Is seems there are very few real men in the world.
Also, it's nice to say that boys should not consume porn, but everyone knows that all boys have access to it. That's why I have such a huge problem with this kind of censorship. It does nothing to solve the real problem. It just gives parents an excuse to believe there may not be a problem, when there clearly is one.
I love the quote from the CNN article:
Apple isn't known for letting the market decide. They are control freaks. Their behavior in regard to the App Store is totally unreasonable, and it is going to kill the App Store. They need to learn to "Think Different". Assholes.
Einstein had nothing to do with the atomic bomb, other than supporting it politically. Not to say that he wasn't a brilliant physicist, but he really had nothing to do with it.
You are looking at the cost of the test systems.
He's saying that a 1 kw unit will cost $3,000, last 30 years, and be twice as efficient as a conventional gas generator (so around 80%). That means he expects it to produce 260,000 kWh of electricity in it's lifetime, while consuming about 30,000 cubic meters of natural gas. If you assume that natural gas will cost about 50 cents per cubic meter, while electricity will cost 12 cents per kWh, you get about $15,000 operating cost for this system ($18,000 including the cost of the unit itself), while simply buying the electricity off the grid would cost you about $30,000.
Even if the units end up costing $15,000 for a 1kW unit, it will be cost competitive with grid power!
So yeah, this system is cost competitive with grid power. Impossible you say? No, because it is twice as efficient at converting chemical energy into electrical power! The high initial costs are balanced by the phenomenal energy efficiency, and the long proposed lifespan of the units.
30 years is a fairly typical time line for the power industry, because the government usually compels them to sell power for less than is really reasonable. But on the plus side, power generators have an easy time getting government subsidized loans to offset the disadvantage. Gotta love our free market economy :)
Fuel cells have the benefit of having no moving parts. The benefit is that they can be very low maintenance. That can mean lower operating costs, especially for smaller plants. But in theory these could be more cost effective than a large plant, as long as the fuel cells are cheap enough and reliable enough, and they are more efficient power generators ( greater energy efficiency is practically a given when you are taking about fuel cells).
The real question is how efficient are these fuel cells, and how much do they cost per year to maintain? If they are 70% or more efficient they beat combined cycle generators, and fuel cells typically achieve this. As long as they don't need to be replaced very often and the membranes are cheap to replace, this will work well. You could combine this with an high-temperature electrolysis plant and use it to store wind or solar power. That is one of the main things standing in the way of using alternative energy for base-load electric generation.
Are you sure about that? These are ceramic membranes, not polymer, so they might last a lot longer. Also, they don't contain platinum, so they might cost a lot less as well.
You can quit your job at any time. You are compelled to attend high-school by force of law.
Stating your qualitative opinion of something is not libel, it is an opinion. It is protected under free speech regardless. You're a douche-bag. This is not libel, this is my honest and truthful opinion.
But this car is one that the driver sits in, the other cars have the driver laying on their back. This car seems a little more practical to me for that reason.
Drag increases with the square of speed, so your equation should be:
2752 mpg / 5 seats / (80 mph / 30 mph) * (80 mph / 30 mph) = 77.4 mpg
Rolling friction is dependent on wheels first and foremost (based on their size, shape, thickness, how inelastic they are, how efficient the bearing is), not so much the road surface. It certainly is possible to achieve a very low rolling friction, especially in a lightweight vehicle.
From Wikipedia:
So a theory does not have to be established by evidence in order to be a theory, it only must make a testable prediction. However, in practice scientists won't call it a theory unless it is established by a body of evidence and largely consistent with existing accepted theories.
There's a little difference between facts and theories. Facts have been tested, theories have not.
We shouldn't use the term "Science" as a blanket term to describe any method of investigation. Doing that discredits what I consider legitimate science in the eyes of the un-differentiating public.
Although the "Science" of global climate change is filled with computer models, hypothesis and conjecture, it is mostly devoid controlled experimentation. Controlled experimentation is, in my opinion, the difference between science and other forms of investigation. You need controlled experimentation to gather information about the certainty and applicability of you conclusions. Without controlled experimentation it is impossible to differentiate causality from mere correlation.
It that something like anal bum cover?
Privacy is overrated. I think it's hilarious when public celebrities say "we expect people to respect our privacy during these difficult times". They certainly were happy to enjoy the benefits of public life, well lack of privacy is the price. Likewise with the internet and open availability of information. It's great that we're all sharing and all kinds of information is out in the open, but it also means a lack of privacy. You take the good with the bad. You can't have you cake and eat it too.
That's ridiculous. A toaster oven is merely a larger toaster. What's the benefit to that? There is absolutely nothing you can do with a toaster oven that you can't do with a toaster. Just tell you wife to stick with the toaster, there is no reason she could possibly want a toaster oven.
Usually when people say they can't find work, they mean work they are willing to do. He might be able to get a job at McDonalds or 7-eleven, but they probably weren't up to his standards.
I have a lot of friends who say they can't find a job because of the job market. When I ask them if they've tried at applying for a job at a fast food place with a help-wanted sign on the door they universally respond with something like "I won't work fast food" or "I'm looking for more money than that". It's hard to earn my sympathy, if that's all the harder you'll try. I've worked fast-food, I've been a janitor, I've worked a cash register. If I were to lose my job today, I wouldn't consider myself above such things. It's all work that needs to get done.